Derek quotes me: > Re: ' Derek was responding to a rather longish posting, much of which is > not > acknowledged by him. This repeated proclivity when responding to > counter-arguments > suggests one of three causes: > > He doesn't grasp what he's just read. > > He forgets what he's just read. > > And I can't help suspecting this third factor may be ruling: he either > willfully or in subconscious flight "overlooks" rebuttals he cannot cope > with.'" > Derek then comments: > There is another possibility. I don't usually want to write long detailed > posts. So I focus on what seem to me to be key points - or points of > particular interest. > But, in "there-you-go-again" fashion, Derek ignores these lines in the posting he was responding to: > > > > One of Derek's regularly-displayed weaknesses is that he apparently reads > > postings solely to find what he disagrees with. I don't recall ever > > finding him > > saying someone has made a worthy point that he never thought of. A > > corollary > > weakness in him is that he regularly ignores those elements in a > > counter-arguing > > posting that he evidently cannot rebut. > It may be true that Derek prefers to "focus on what seem to me to be key points - or points of particular interest."
But the precise point I was making was that Derek never prefers to focus something he has learned, or something he cannot rebut. Why not? I continue to maintain that either he doesn't grasp such things, or he forgets them, or he suppresses them. I don't say these things to be mean. I say them to help expose to him why listers find him such an unsatisfactory interlocutor. I myself find him a great training partner. Coping with his hard questions and persistent evasiveness is mentally salubrious. > > > > "In a philosophical dispute, he gains most who is defeated, since he > > learns > > most." > > > > > ************** Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family favorites at AOL Food. (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
